Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: General Sibley on November 27, 2004, 06:25:10 AM



Title: Alexander (2004)
Post by: General Sibley on November 27, 2004, 06:25:10 AM
Went to the movies yesterday with my wife, not much to choose from where I am for the holiday in Michigan - so we compromised on "After the Sunset".  Which sucked, but nice Salma Hayek  :P eye candy so it was bearable.

"Alexander the Great" was across the hall at the cineplex, so popped in there and caught the first hour or so (4 hours without bathroom is pushing it, and they wouldn't let you back in without the Alexander stub).   They're really tearing this thing apart in the reviews, but I didn't think it was that bad.  But I left right after the Battle of Gaugamela, and I hear it really goes downhill fast after that.

I always liked Oliver Stone, he's a nut but his movies are always visually interesting.  But they try to set this up in the narrative that Alexander is some misunderstood bisexual pretty boy Prince of Peace spreading joy to the world.  C'mon, this guy's a conqueror as ruthless as Genghis Khan who was out for loot and glory.  Colin Farrell is woefully miscast from what I saw though.  Sorry Belkin, but he's just a pretty boy who can't act a lick - makes Leo look like Brando.

Any movies worth seeing this weekend, it's slim pickin's out there.  Is "National Treasure" worth $8?


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: Belkin on November 27, 2004, 08:10:12 AM
Don't worry, General, never was much of a COLIN FARRELL fan, even if he is a homeboy! ;)


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: cigar joe on November 28, 2004, 06:37:22 AM
I saw ATG this weekend also, its a beautifully shot epic I'll say that much, but the story could have been told much better than it was (Check out The A&E I think it was "Alexander"). The battle are well done but A&E explained them much better, what you have is confusion and dust. The killer to this film It has these uncomfortably lingering eye contact shots between Alexander and his shall we imply "boy friends", nothing like hitting the audience over the head with it, Stone could have made this point a little more ambigious, but he chose not to and these scenes overpower the whole thing. If he had equally done the same with all of Alexander's women interests it would have balanced the bisexuality theme.  The whole culture and mores of the world were way differnt then and if Stone had emphasized that with all the cultures Alexander encountered it would have made it seem all par for the course. It would have at least made him out to be some horney goat who was out not only to "f" his fellow men and women but the world too. lol. PS alot of the androgenous actors are wearing serious eyeshadow, this is going to become a camp classic no doubt, lol.

If this was Stone's vision so be, it but if it was edited by someone else into what we see on the screen what a colossal blunder.  I was looking forward to another Gladiator, what a let down.


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: General Sibley on November 29, 2004, 02:12:42 PM
Stone has the flaming fag thing going on in all his movies - "JFK" had the David Ferry's etal prancing around.  "Nixon" had J. Edgar Hoover leering at his cute little cabana boy while Tolson pouted as they sipped umbrella drinks.  Funny stuff, but I'm not sure if he camps it up deliberately or not - which makes it even funnier.


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: Nobody on December 22, 2004, 11:50:10 AM
At least it was better than Troy, King Arthur, and all that kind of crap. It was not as shallow as those, better shot, but just as poorly cast. Only Val Kilmer was fun to watch. Angelina Jolie sounded like a Bond babe from the sixties.


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on March 15, 2007, 04:43:43 PM
I know this film is not to popular, but I was wondering if anybody here has seen the recent, and supposed final release. If so, what's your thoughts?


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: Tim on March 15, 2007, 10:12:01 PM
 
Quote
Is it worth a rental?

  You'd definitely be safer with a rental than buying it, jon.  I haven't seen the new cut, but the version I saw was long, and not in a good way, some parts really dragged.  Colin Farrell is pretty good as Alexander, Angelina is bad, Val Kilmer seems to be having fun with his part.  The best part I thought were the battles, especially the one with the elephants.  It's filmed with a red lens that gives it a dream-like quality to the whole thing.

  Oh, and how could I forget, Rosario Dawson topless in a sex scene, not too shabby.   O0 ;D


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: The Firecracker on March 15, 2007, 10:39:14 PM
The final cut is indeed cut. All the homosexuality is cut from the film.


Title: Re: Alexander (2004)
Post by: Amaze on March 17, 2007, 01:21:53 PM
The final cut is indeed cut. All the homosexuality is cut from the film.


 ;D